Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: DHS Acts to Eliminate Opportunities for Foreign Entrepreneurs and U.S. Job Growth By Emily Creighton

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: DHS Acts to Eliminate Opportunities for Foreign Entrepreneurs and U.S. Job Growth By Emily Creighton

    DHS Acts to Eliminate Opportunities for Foreign Entrepreneurs and U.S. Job Growth

    by


    The Trump administration continued its shortsighted attack on businesses this week, indicating it will end a rule allowing foreign entrepreneurs to grow start-up companies in the United States. The International Entrepreneur Rule (IER) was designed to bring the talent, ideas, and initiative of foreign entrepreneurs to the United States by easing the process for them to obtain permission to travel to or stay in the United States and build their businesses here.

    Fundamental to the IER is the potential for American jobs. Only those foreign entrepreneurs who can demonstrate a “significant public benefit to the United States” and “substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation” can travel to the United States using this rule.

    In the notice explaining its reasons for ending the IER , the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acknowledges the important benefits entrepreneurs bring to the United States:

    “DHS stands by its previous findings that foreign entrepreneurs make substantial and positive contributions to innovation, economic growth, and job creation in the United States.”

    Yet, this opportunity for job creation and economic growth—an opportunity that many of the United States’ global competitors are taking advantage of—is evidently not enough for DHS.

    The agency attempts to justify ending IER by arguing that a solution for foreign entrepreneurs should be left to Congress. They also maintain that IER relies too heavily on the use of parole , which is granted by the DHS secretary to temporarily allow certain noncitizens to physically enter the United States if—for among other reasons—they would bring a significant public benefit to the country. In addition, DHS contends that existing visa categories offer more “durable immigration solutions” for entrepreneurs.

    First, Congress already has offered a solution that works for these foreign entrepreneurs. It has granted DHS parole authority to bring entrepreneurs into the United States.

    And DHS’ argument that existing visa categories are a more “durable solution” for foreign entrepreneurs glosses over a larger problem—not all entrepreneurs who qualified under the IER would be eligible for a different type of visa. DHS identifies only one temporary and one immigrant visa category and acknowledges that only “some” of the entrepreneurs eligible for parole could meet the requirements of these limited categories.

    This isn’t the first time the administration has attempted to halt the IER. After the rule became final, DHS belatedly tried to delay its implementation. Individual entrepreneurs, startup companies, and the National Venture Capital Association—the largest organization of venture capitalists in the United States—were harmed by the abrupt halt to the rule and filed suit . A federal court quickly ruled against the administration’s attempt to delay the rule and DHS began accepting foreign entrepreneurs’ applications.

    Despite that court ruling in early December, DHS has not yet approved any entrepreneur parole applications.

    Now, it appears DHS will end the program. Instead of attracting and capitalizing on talented foreign entrepreneurs who want to bring new ideas to the United States, this administration has chosen to undo a program with enormous potential before it even got off the ground.


    About The Author

    Emily Creighton is the Deputy Legal Director at the American Immigration Council. She oversees the development of the Council’s legal education, non-litigation advocacy, and Freedom of Information Act work, and supports the Immigration Justice Campaign. Prior to her new role at the Council, she served as the Senior Advisor on Humanitarian Programs at the CIS Ombudsman’s Office from 2016 to 2017. Previous to that, she was a Senior Staff Attorney with the Council. As a staff attorney, she engaged in impact litigation, representing amicus curiae in immigration cases in federal court and before the Board of Immigration Appeals, and authored numerous practice advisories. Emily holds a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law and a B.A. from Boston College.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
      ImmigrationDaily

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

      Presidential use of "national security"
      ...
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    Working...
    X